Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[stu]

carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Don't you ask yourself if carbon dioxide and nitric oxide molecules 'bounce' heat from the sun in space, back into space, why they wouldn't 'bounce' heat created by human made emissions on Earth, back to Earth and why the more carbon dioxide and nitric oxide molecules humans create wouldn't mean heat got 'bounced' back more and more?



http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

NASA

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming. Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level."

 

[nitro]

Don't you ask yourself if carbon dioxide and nitric oxide molecules 'bounce' heat from the sun in space, back into space, why they wouldn't 'bounce' heat created by human made emissions on Earth, back to Earth and why the more carbon dioxide and nitric oxide molecules humans create wouldn't mean heat got 'bounced' back more and more?

A Noble Prize was given for discovering new properties of molecules. Scientists have dubbed it, Political Party Spin. They call it PPS for short.

This new property it was discovered, plays an amazing role. The property it is discovered, acts to reflect light or not [or better known as energetic photons on the visible spectrum] depending on which side of a planet the molecules face, and which political party is doing the looking. Another example of Quantum Weirdness at play. On Earth, if you are a republican scientist, if the molecule is on the sun facing side, amazingly the molecules reflect light like crazy. But on the planet facing side on the other side of the cloud molecules, they just let all the energy pass right through them out into space.

This new property, PPS, has been used to explain why clouds on Venus seem to be so cool while on the planet below, lead melts due to the scorching heat. Even though Venus is several million miles closer to the sun than Earth, the Venusian clouds manage to stay cool because there is no Spin vector there. Remember, you need the party scientist to observe the molecule and while we believe there are no republicans on Venus, therefore no PPS. The molecules know when it is a good thing to reflect and when it is not a good thing. That is the Spin vector of the molecule. On Earth, we finally have an explanation as to why the Earth can never turn into Venus - PPS will rescue us.

Scientists at CERN are perplexed, and think that this may be evidence for God.

 

[piezoe]

I agree that scientists can fall into the fervor of a belief so much that it blinds them to the data. After all, they are human beings and even the most analytical person can have bouts of irrationality. I also agree that consensus is NOT proof.

While there still may not be irrefutable proof of global warming, regardless of their causes – whether you believe in anthropocentric drivers, like fossil fuels from power plants and airplanes and cars and chemicals dumped on the ocean ad-infinitum, or not — the observed changes in climate are scientific facts that have grave implications for the future of natural and human systems.

So to answer your point, EVEN IF there is still not enough scientific evidence to give say a 5-sigma definitive signal that the odds of HFGW is real, the cautious thing to do IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE DO HAVE is to prepare for the worst, all the while crossing my fingers and hoping for the best. If it turns out that the whole thing was a mistake, then we will not be much worse off due to the caution. Developing renewable resources is inherently not a bad thing and is good diversification in general. But if it turns out to be true (in the five-sigma event case), then we will be really glad that we took steps early to try to dampen the potential catastrophic repercussion that may occur. Time ahead of it is what makes it so damning if we do nothing. At some point, the process is irreversible.

So, this debate back and forth about scientific evidence is silly. My guess is that the evidence we have now is something like a 2-sigma event, enough for serious worry, but not necessarily out of the realm that what we could be seeing is conceivably a head-fake and the warming is due to a greater extent by natural processes.

But, when you plug in the 2-std into any probability model that says, how should we proceed with this evidence when the stakes are so incredibly high, no one in their right minds takes the position that you and Jem and others do.

So I will let you and others here debate for sport whether the scientific evidence is or is not enough to warrant assigning it a 99.999999% true value. I prefer to deal with the evidence in a probabilistic manner.

The odds of a asteroid striking Earth is something like 1 to 1,000,000,000,000 against. But if it does strike the Earth all life on Earth is dead for at least a thousand years. So, what is the correct thing to do? To try to avert it if possible and dedicate resources to hedge ourselves. EVEN AGAINST something so ridiculously rare. The evidence for HFGW is a million trillion, yes, a MILLION TRILLION, times more likely than that, with scenarios of devastation similar to an asteroid hitting Earth. Except it will be a slow death instead of a fast one.

I'm in quite good agreement here. Where we differ I think is on one point only. I am satisfied that the evidence now is overwhelmingly against CO2, at least at current levels, representing a significant temperature threat. The odds of CO2 causing disastrous global warming should be much smaller than the odds of a destructive asteroid striking the Earth. At least the latter odds are finite and positive!

Hansen's hypothesis is supported by models, not by actual observation. Many observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis. Positive feedback is assumed by 100% of the models predicting dire consequences. With out the positive feedback there are only very small changes in temperature due to elevated CO2. But the feedback is negative. Consequently 100% of the models are wrong. It is the models that are the basis for the dire predictions of rising temperature due to CO2. If the models are wrong than the predictions based on the models are nonsense. We may all burn up, and there is good direct evidence for warming in some locations and at some latitudes. But the direct experimental evidence is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis. And a single unexplained observation that is inconsistent is enough to require rejection of the hypothesis. In the present case there are innumerable inconsistencies. Even strong correlation of CO2 with temperature falls apart when one takes time into consideration. Then it is very clear that CO2 lags temperature. Furthermore, the land based temperature readings, on which Hansen's earlier work depended on almost exclusively, are the least reliable for use in estimating global mean temperature, and the satellite measurements the most reliable. The land and satellite observations do not agree!. The satellite data shows no significant global change over the past 17 years, whereas land based readings, which are clearly insufficient for estimating global mean temperature change, show elevation in some latitudes and locations. This also is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis which requires global warming be observed.

So the bottom line is that the dire predictions of global, exponential temperature excursions are all based on Hansen's hypothesis, which even Hansen admits requires positive feedback. The hypothesis has turned out to be wrong, and has to be rejected. We have no experimental basis to allow us to conclude that elevated CO2 will cause dangerous temperature elevation. Apparently there is a yet to be discovered cause for the elevated temperatures we see in some regions of the planet.

Let us not get carried away and forget that our planet is not only much warmer at night because of our atmosphere and the huge thermal sink of the oceans and land mass, but it is much colder during the day for the same reasons. Clearly our planet together with its atmosphere resists temperature change. Only very large perturbances are going to be able to have a net effect on mean global temperature. We are probably exercising our natural tendency toward hubris by giving ourselves far to much credit for thinking that by elevating our atmospheric CO2, a weak IR absorber, by 100 molecules in a million molecules of dry air, and far less than that in moist air, we can produce a significant and exponential rise in temperature.

One should not use the rejection of Hansen's hypothesis however to justify complacency. We must continue the research, but it must be carried on without political and media interference.

 

[Ricter]

I'm in quite good agreement here. Where we differ I think is on one point only. I am satisfied that the evidence now is overwhelmingly against CO2, at least at current levels, representing a significant temperature threat. The odds of CO2 causing disastrous global warming should be much smaller than the odds of a destructive asteroid striking the Earth. At least the latter odds are finite and positive!

Hansen's hypothesis is supported by models, not by actual observation. Many observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis. Positive feedback is assumed by 100% of the models predicting dire consequences. With out the positive feedback there are only very small changes in temperature due to elevated CO2. But the feedback is negative. Consequently 100% of the models are wrong. It is the models that are the basis for the dire predictions of rising temperature due to CO2. If the models are wrong than the predictions based on the models are nonsense. We may all burn up, and there is good direct evidence for warming in some locations and at some latitudes. But the direct experimental evidence is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis. And a single unexplained observation that is inconsistent is enough to require rejection of the hypothesis. In the present case there are innumerable inconsistencies. Even strong correlation of CO2 with temperature falls apart when one takes time into consideration. Then it is very clear that CO2 lags temperature. Furthermore, the land based temperature readings, on which Hansen's earlier work depended on almost exclusively, are the least reliable for use in estimating global mean temperature, and the satellite measurements the most reliable. The land and satellite observations do not agree!. The satellite data shows no significant global change over the past 17 years, whereas land based readings, which are clearly insufficient for estimating global mean temperature change, show elevation in some latitudes and locations. This also is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis which requires global warming be observed.

So the bottom line is that the dire predictions of global, exponential temperature excursions are all based on Hansen's hypothesis, which even Hansen admits requires positive feedback. The hypothesis has turned out to be wrong, and has to be rejected. We have no experimental basis to allow us to conclude that elevated CO2 will cause dangerous temperature elevation. Apparently there is a yet to be discovered cause for the elevated temperatures we see in some regions of the planet.

Let us not get carried away and forget that our planet is not only much warmer at night because of our atmosphere and the huge thermal sink of the oceans and land mass, but it is much colder during the day for the same reasons. Clearly our planet together with its atmosphere resists temperature change. Only very large perturbances are going to be able to have a net effect on mean global temperature. We are probably exercising our natural tendency toward hubris by giving ourselves far to much credit for thinking that by elevating our atmospheric CO2, a weak IR absorber, by 100 molecules in a million molecules of dry air, and far less than that in moist air, we can produce a significant and exponential rise in temperature.

One should not use the rejection of Hansen's hypothesis however to justify complacency. We must continue the research, but it must be carried on without political and media interference.

It is not CO2 moderating Earth's day side temperature.

 

[jem]

Of course... I have made that point in the past when discussing the article. Its why I accept the fact co2 is considered a greenhouse gas.
When scientist's provide science I am happy. It's why I keep asking your side for the peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.

I recall no one here denying that the vast majority of scientists believe that co2 in the atmosphere does bounce some IR heat back to the earth. You seem to have fallen for the same strawman trick you like pull in other our science discussions about fine tunings. Just because fraudcurrents routinely implies we deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas... does not mean we do. That you could fall for the very tactic you employ manifests why so many of us consider misstating the others sides arguments to be such a spineless troll trick.

I have explained that as you add more co2 to the lower atmosphere many scientists tell us you get logarithmically less warming per molecule. this is consistent with the idea that CO2 is part of a negative feedback system... it acts like a "thermostat" in the short run and long run. It could very well be that some point additional co2 in the atmosphere makes more of an impact as a shield than as a blanket.

Its a very complex subject which science has yet to dial in.

Don't you ask yourself if carbon dioxide and nitric oxide molecules 'bounce' heat from the sun in space, back into space, why they wouldn't 'bounce' heat created by human made emissions on Earth, back to Earth and why the more carbon dioxide and nitric oxide molecules humans create wouldn't mean heat got 'bounced' back more and more?



http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

NASA

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming. Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level."

 

[futurecurrents]

I'm in quite good agreement here. Where we differ I think is on one point only. I am satisfied that the evidence now is overwhelmingly against CO2, at least at current levels, representing a significant temperature threat. The odds of CO2 causing disastrous global warming should be much smaller than the odds of a destructive asteroid striking the Earth. At least the latter odds are finite and positive!

Hansen's hypothesis is supported by models, not by actual observation. Many observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis. Positive feedback is assumed by 100% of the models predicting dire consequences. With out the positive feedback there are only very small changes in temperature due to elevated CO2. But the feedback is negative. Consequently 100% of the models are wrong. It is the models that are the basis for the dire predictions of rising temperature due to CO2. If the models are wrong than the predictions based on the models are nonsense. We may all burn up, and there is good direct evidence for warming in some locations and at some latitudes. But the direct experimental evidence is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis. And a single unexplained observation that is inconsistent is enough to require rejection of the hypothesis. In the present case there are innumerable inconsistencies. Even strong correlation of CO2 with temperature falls apart when one takes time into consideration. Then it is very clear that CO2 lags temperature. Furthermore, the land based temperature readings, on which Hansen's earlier work depended on almost exclusively, are the least reliable for use in estimating global mean temperature, and the satellite measurements the most reliable. The land and satellite observations do not agree!. The satellite data shows no significant global change over the past 17 years, whereas land based readings, which are clearly insufficient for estimating global mean temperature change, show elevation in some latitudes and locations. This also is inconsistent with Hansen's hypothesis which requires global warming be observed.

So the bottom line is that the dire predictions of global, exponential temperature excursions are all based on Hansen's hypothesis, which even Hansen admits requires positive feedback. The hypothesis has turned out to be wrong, and has to be rejected. We have no experimental basis to allow us to conclude that elevated CO2 will cause dangerous temperature elevation. Apparently there is a yet to be discovered cause for the elevated temperatures we see in some regions of the planet.

Let us not get carried away and forget that our planet is not only much warmer at night because of our atmosphere and the huge thermal sink of the oceans and land mass, but it is much colder during the day for the same reasons. Clearly our planet together with its atmosphere resists temperature change. Only very large perturbances are going to be able to have a net effect on mean global temperature. We are probably exercising our natural tendency toward hubris by giving ourselves far to much credit for thinking that by elevating our atmospheric CO2, a weak IR absorber, by 100 molecules in a million molecules of dry air, and far less than that in moist air, we can produce a significant and exponential rise in temperature.

One should not use the rejection of Hansen's hypothesis however to justify complacency. We must continue the research, but it must be carried on without political and media interference.

The feedback IS positive.

There IS no pause in warming.

Satellite temps are NOT more accurate than the thousands of land based stations. To say so displays shocking ignorance.

There is no such thing as "Hansen's Hypothesis". There is the greenhouse effect and climate models. But of course ad homing it diminishes the vast science to one person. A clever strategy.

The CO2 climate model IS confirmed by observation.

The absolute concentration of something is NOT an indication of it's potency. (A staggeringly stupid thing for a "scientist" like piezoe to say. So much so I truly doubt that he is one. See Polonium.

There is NOT an un-found reason of why the "temps are elevated" ("in some places").

These are all easily found facts that I have pointed out several times and shown links to in the past. It's like you don't see them or listen .

Ricter, nitro, stu, what is the deal with this guy? In every other area he posts he is generally intelligent and correct. But in this area it's like some other person has taken him over. The CT'r in me thinks this may be a sort of Trojan horse strategy. Cozy up to the progressives and then burst out and attack their thinking on this issue. It's a brilliant strategy for someone who is working to spread confusion about climate change. There are certainly types like him working for think tanks and special interests that ply the social media. It fits his M O .

Maybe he has me on ignore because I point out his lies. He never seems to respond with any facts to counter my correcting of his BS. Perhaps one of you can quote this post. Not that I expect any change.

 

[piezoe]

It is not CO2 moderating Earth's day side temperature.

CO2 is a major player in the plant world, it is a minor player in moderating temperature and a minor greenhouse gas. (It is critical, however, to the proper brewing of beer! ) Water in all its three states is a major player along with the land masses. The layman gets hung up on "the greenhouse effect" because of all the media attention, and because everyone has driven home from their local Walmart on a hot July day after having left their windows rolled up. (Here let me interject that car windows are infinitely better IR absorbers than the CO2 in your car.) But there are many more mechanisms effecting our temperature besides the greenhouse effect. (That complexity, and chaotic nature, is why accurate modeling of our climate has so far eluded everyone.) Lacis, in that silly blurb of a few years back made it sound like everything temperature wise depends on CO2. It clearly doesn't. The paleo record shows periods when CO2 was much higher than today yet the temperature was lower! Now, one can argue that the paleo record is subject to large error. But even so, parts of that record Hansen, et al., want to use to support their hypothesis. But they want to use only the parts that agree with their hypothesis, and reject or ignore the rest. In this sense, at least they are consistent with the approach of modern religions toward interpretation of the Bible.:eek:

 

[Ricter]

The feedback IS positive.

There IS no pause in warming.

Satellite temps are NOT more accurate than the thousands of land based stations. To say so displays shocking ignorance.

There is no such thing as "Hansen's Hypothesis". There is the greenhouse effect and climate models. But of course ad homing it diminishes the vast science to one person. A clever strategy.

The CO2 climate model IS confirmed by observation.

The absolute concentration of something is NOT an indication of it's potency. (A staggeringly stupid thing for a "scientist" like piezoe to say. So much so I truly doubt that he is one. See Polonium.

There is NOT an un-found reason of why the "temps are elevated" ("in some places").

These are all easily found facts that I have pointed out several times and shown links to in the past. It's like you don't see them or listen .

Ricter, nitro, stu, what is the deal with this guy? In every other area he posts he is generally intelligent and correct. But in this area it's like some other person has taken him over. The CT'r in me thinks this may be a sort of Trojan horse strategy. Cozy up to the progressives and then burst out and attack their thinking on this issue. It's a brilliant strategy for someone who is working to spread confusion about climate change. There are certainly types like him working for think tanks and special interests that ply the social media. It fits his M O .

Maybe he has me on ignore because I point out his lies. He never seems to respond with any facts to counter my correcting of his BS. Perhaps one of you can quote this post. Not that I expect any change.

Quoting your post doesn't work to show him the content anymore. The new software blocks that, too. I could copy and paste of course, but that probably violates the board's CoC.

 

[gwb-trading]

NOAA would like you to know that it can't provide you with the climate data it used to reach their conclusion because of "Confidentiality" or something, and not because they are totally faking "data" and numbers

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/noaa-withholds-climate-documents-from-congress/

 

[gwb-trading]

It's not suspicious at all that between the years 2005 and 2015, the 1880's got colder and colder